M/S Madho Mehesh Sugar Mills Ltd. ... vs U.P.State Sugar Corporation Ltd. ...
2023 Latest Caselaw 27197 ALL

HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT ALLAHABAD, LUCKNOW BENCH
 
 


?Neutral Citation No. - 2023:AHC-LKO:64021-DB
 
Court No. - 3
 

 
Case :- WRIT - C No. - 4667 of 2001
 

 
Petitioner :- M/S Madho Mehesh Sugar Mills Ltd. And Others
 
Respondent :- U.P.State Sugar Corporation Ltd. And Others
 
Counsel for Petitioner :- Vivek Kumar Shukla,A.K.Srivastava,Dr L P Misra,Jayant Rajan,Manoj Kumar Srivastava,R.C.Tewari,S.C.Tewari,Vinod Kumar Singh Ii
 
Counsel for Respondent :- C.S.C.,P.K.Sinha
 

 
Hon'ble Vivek Chaudhary,J.

Hon'ble Manish Kumar,J.

(Order on C.M. Application No.19941 of 2011-Amendment Application)

1. Heard Dr. L.P. Mishra, learned counsel for petitioner and learned Standing Counsel for State.

2. Present amendment application is filed by the petitioners on 18.02.2011 whereby they have prayed for correcting the address of petitioner no.2 to 6 and for adding paragraphs 17-A to 17-K and grounds no.I to S and for following prayer 1-a in the writ petition:-

"1-a To issue a writ, order or direction in the appropriate nature declaring the U.P. Ordinance No.8 of 1985 and U.P. Act No.20 of 1985 as utravires"

3. The said application is strongly opposed by learned Standing Counsel. He submits that the application is filed after much delay and due to the orders passed in earlier writ petitions, SLPs and delay of more than 26 years in challenging the aforesaid ordinance, the amendment application should be dismissed.

4. On the other hand learned counsel for petitioners submits that the amendment application should be allowed in the interest of justice and to decide controversy completely.

5. Facts of the case are that petitioners' company was having sugar undertaking at Basti which was acquired under the U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition Amendment) Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance No.17 of 1984) whereby U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition) Act, 1971 was amended. For the undertaking of the petitioners' company, compensation amount of Rs.16,88,657/- was determined. The validity of the Ordinance and Act were challenged by number of writ petitions which were heard and decided by this Court by its judgment and order dated 26.02.1985 leading petition bearing No.2895 of 1981; 'M/s Mahabir Sugar Mills and Another Vs. State of U.P. and Others. The writ petition of petitioners being Writ Petition No.5251 of 1984; 'Madho Mahesh Sugar Mills Ltd. Basti Vs. State of U.P. and Others'. While disposing the writ petitions, this Court granted following directions:-

"In view of what has been stated above the writ petitions are allowed in part and Schedule-II of the U.P. Ordinance No.17 of 1984, in so far as it specifies compensation payable o the petitioners, is quashed. A writ of mandamus is issued and the State Government to redetermine the compensation payable to the petitioners in accordance with law as indicated in our judgments within six weeks from today and notify the same by publication in the official gazette. If this command is not followed within the time allowed, the U.P. Sugar Undertaking (Acquisition Amendment) Ordinance, 1984 (Ordinance No.17 of 1984) shall stand declared void in relation to the present petitioners. Writ Petition No.1422 of 1981 which is directed against the extension of the term of receiver is dismissed as infructuous."

6. The time granted in the said order was further extended by order dated 08.04.1985 till 28.04.1985. Within the time extended by the Court, a new Ordinance being U.P. Ordinance No.8 of 1985 was brought into force which later became U.P. Act No.20 of 1985. The said Ordinance published in gazette on 26.04.1985. By the said U.P. Ordinance No.8 of 1985, compensation of petitioners was re-fixed in compliance of directions contained in judgment and order dated 26.02.1985. Meanwhile, against the judgment and order dated 26.02.1985 SLP(C) No.9931-32 of 1991 was filed. Bunch of SLPs including that of petitioners' were disposed of by judgment and order dated 27.08.1996 in leading Civil Appeal No.2576-77 of 1985; 'Mahabir Sugar Mills Ltd. and Others Vs. State of U.P. and Others and connected matters. Civil Appeal No.1294 of 1986 and Writ Petition No.391 of 1986 was with regard to petitioners' sugar mill and was disposed of with the following order:-

"These matters are disposed of together. We need not elaborately mention the facts leading to file these appeals and writ petitions. Suffice it to state that the validity of U.P. Sugar Undertakings (Acquisition) Act, 1971 was upheld by this Court in The Ishwari Khetan Sugar Mills (P) Ltd. & Anr. etc. Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh & Ors. etc. [(1980) 3 SCR 331]. However, proceedings before the BIFR is pending to streamline the working of sick industry sick industry, namely, U.P. State Sugar Corporation. Shri H.N. Salve, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellants and Writ Petitioner in these cases, submitted that he had discussion with his clients after the case was last adjourned. He suggested that the appellants are proposing to make a representation to the BIFR for consideration of their cases and so not necessary to argue the case on merits. In that view we need not decide the case on merit. It would be open to the appellants to make representation to the BIFR and it would be open to the BIFR to entertain the representation and dispose it of.

The appeals and Writ Petitions are accordingly dismissed as withdrawn with the above observation. We make it clear that no issue of law or fact is left open in these cases."

7. While disposing the SLP of petitioner, the Supreme Court specifically stated that no issue of law or fact is left open in these cases. After the aforesaid judgment passed on 27.08.1996 by the Supreme Court, petitioner filed present writ petition on 18.09.2001 before this Court with the following primary prayers:-

"i) pass appropriate writ, order or directions in the nature of mandamus restraining the respondents particularly respondent No.1 from selling/transferring the present undertaking i.e. Madho Mahesh Sugar Mills Ltd., Munderwa Basti,

ii) issue a writ, order or direction in the nature of mandamus directing the respondents to hand over the possession of undertaking/factory of the petitioners."

8. Along with the writ petition, order passed by the Supreme Court was not annexed by the petitioners. Now, after around 10 years of filing of the writ petition, present amendment application is filed whereby validity of Ordinance of 1985 is challenged. It is apparently clear from the above facts that validity of the Ordinance was not challenged by the petitioners even before the Supreme Court while their SLP was pending. From the above fact it is clear that the matter with regard to acquisition of the petitioners' sugar undertaking was heard by the Supreme Court and thereafter no relief was granted to the petitioners. Validity or correctness of Ordinance No.8 of 1985 was also an issue which could or should be raised before the Supreme Court only. The Supreme Court specifically found that no issue of law or fact left to be considered. Therefore, all issues prior to the date of judgment of Supreme Court i.e. 27.08.1996 stood concluded by the said judgment. It was not left to the petitioners to raise any of the said issues in view of aforesaid judgment of Supreme Court. Therefore, now to challenge the said Ordinance of 1985 before this Court on merits is not permissible. Even otherwise, there is a delay of 26 long years in challenging the said Ordinance and no sufficient reason is there explaining the said inordinate delay of 26 years in challenging the said Ordinance. Therefore, both on ground of delay as well as being covered by the judgment of Supreme Court this Court does not find it fit to allow the present amendment application.

9. Accordingly, the amendment application is rejected.

Order Date :- 05.10.2023

Arti/-

[Manish Kumar,J.] [ Vivek Chaudhary,J.]

After pronouncement of order on amendment Application, following order is passed on writ petition:-

1. After the aforesaid order was pronounced, Dr. L.P. Misra, learned counsel for the petitioners made an oral prayer that leave may be granted to challenge the aforesaid order rejecting the amendment application by way of Special Leave Petition. He also places reliance upon number of judgements that amendment application should have been allowed.

2. Admittedly, the said judgements were not placed before this court at the time of hearing of the amendment application. We do not find any force in the submission of Dr. L.P. Misra as such no substantial question of law arises in rejecting the aforesaid amendment application. Thus, the prayer is rejected.

3. At this stage, Dr. L.P. Misra states that he may be granted leave even to challenge the aforesaid order rejecting his oral prayer by filing Special Leave Petition. No reason is specified by Dr. L.P. Misra for the said prayer. The said prayer is also rejected.

4. After the aforesaid order was passed, Dr. L.P. Misra states that he has no instructions to argue the writ petition.

5. Therefore, the writ petition is dismissed for want of prosecution.

6. Interim order, if any, stands discharged.

Order Date :- 5.10.2023

Arti/-

[Manish Kumar,J.] [ Vivek Chaudhary,J.]